Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 1 of 37

Docket No. 1615469

____________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
____________________________________
NARUTO, by and through his Next Friend,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID J. SLATER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Case No. 3:15-cv-04324 (Orrick, J.)
____________________________________
OPENING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT
____________________________________
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
David A. Schwarz (Cal. Bar. No. 159376)
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 900674276
Telephone: (310) 2771010
Facsimile: (310) 2037199
dschwarz@irell.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Naruto

9840675

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 2 of 37

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Next Friend People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., certifies that People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, Inc., has no parent corporation and no publicly held
corporation owns People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., stock.
Dated: July 28, 2016

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

By: /s/ David A. Schwarz
Attorneys for PlaintiffAppellant Naruto,
by and through his Next Friend, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.
Of Counsel:
Jeffrey S. Kerr, Esq.
General Counsel
PETA FOUNDATION

9840675

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 3 of 37

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................ 1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE FOR REVIEW .............................................. 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................ 1
A.

Nature of the Case ........................................................................ 1

B.

Procedural History ........................................................................ 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................... 3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 4
STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................. 6
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 7
A.

The Copyright Act grants standing to anyone who creates

an original work of authorship ................................................. 7

B.

Authorship under the Copyright Act is not limited to

humans ....................................................................................... 12

C.

The Copyright Act must be interpreted broadly to achieve

its purpose .................................................................................. 15

D.

Animal authorship under the Copyright Act is an issue of

first impression ........................................................................... 19

E.

The district court erroneously relied on the Compendium ......... 21

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 27

9840675

-i-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 4 of 37

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Aalmuhammed v. Lee,
202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 10
ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.,
__ U.S. __ , 134 S.Ct. 2498 (2014)..................................................................... 12
Action Tapes, Inc. v. Mattson,
462 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 17
Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust,
755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014) .............................................................................8, 14
Bartok v. Boosey & Hawkes, Inc.,
523 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1975) ............................................................................... 26
Bell Atl. Bus. Sys. Servs., Inc. v. Hitachi Data Sys. Corp.,
No. C 9320079 JW, 1995 WL 836331 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 1995) .................. 17
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.,
188 U.S. 239 (1903) ......................................................................................24, 25
Boyds Collection, Ltd. v. Bearington Collection, Inc.,
360 F. Supp. 2d 655 (M.D. Penn. 2005) ............................................................. 27
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,
111 U.S. 53 (1884) .......................................................................................passim
Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush,
386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................... 11, 21
Christensen v. Harris County,
529 U.S. 576 (2000) ............................................................................................ 25
Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,
490 U.S. 730 (1989) ....................................................................................8, 9, 13
District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008) ............................................................................................ 15
9840675

- ii -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 5 of 37

DC Comics v. Towle,
802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1390 (2015) ............................ 8
Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez,
532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 7
Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.,
630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980) ............................................................................... 11
Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.,
225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 24
Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
499 U.S. 340 (1991) ............................................................................................ 15
First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti,
435 U.S. 765 (1978) ............................................................................................ 16
Goldstein v. California,
412 U.S. 546 (1973) ........................................................................................9, 16
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
471 U.S. 539 (1985) ............................................................................................ 15
Imperial Toy Corp. v. Goffa Intl Corp.,
988 F. Supp. 617 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) ..................................................................... 13
Jewelers Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co.,
274 F. 932 (2d Cir. 1921), cert. denied, 259 U.S. 581 (1922) ........................... 24
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK Photo,
998 F. Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .................................................................. 8
Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 7
Los Angeles News Service v. Tullo,
973 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 24
Mason v. Jamie Music Pub. Co.,
658 F. Supp. 2d 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................ 19

9840675

- iii -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 6 of 37

McGary v. City of Portland,

386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 7
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
545 U.S. 913 (2005) ............................................................................................ 12
Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.,
688 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 18
New Idea Farm. Equip. Corp. v. Sperry Corp.,
916 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... 13
North Coast Indus. v. Jason Maxwell, Inc.,
972 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 23
Nottage v. Jackson,
11 Q.B.D. 627 (1883) ......................................................................................... 10
Novak v. United States,
795 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 6
Obergefell v. Hodges,
__ U.S. __ , 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015)..................................................................... 20
Peters v. West,
692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 19
Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Dumas,
53 F.3d 549 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1010 (1995) ................................ 13
Preminger v. Peake,
552 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 7
Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. LAnza Research Intl, Inc.,
523 U.S. 135 (1998) ............................................................................................ 13
Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 6
Santa Clara Cnty. v. Southern Pacific R. Co.,
118 U.S. 394 (1886) ............................................................................................ 16

9840675

- iv -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 7 of 37

Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.,

709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 6
Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entmt, Inc.,
402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 827 (2005) ................................. 8
Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
323 U.S. 134 (1944) ............................................................................................ 25
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios,
464 U.S. 417 (1984) ........................................................................................5, 12
Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879)............................................................. 23
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken,
422 U.S. 151 (1975) ............................................................................................ 15
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Parts Geek, LLC,
692 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 9
United States v. Mead Corp.,
533 U.S. 218 (2001) ............................................................................................ 25
United States v. Nordic Vill. Inc.,
503 U.S. 30 (1992) .............................................................................................. 11
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.,
334 U.S. 131 (1948) ............................................................................................ 15
Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra,
114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................21, 26
Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.,
328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 13
White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co.,
209 U.S. 1 (1908) ................................................................................................ 19
Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc.,
227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 958 (2001) .............. 18, 19
Statutes
17 U.S.C. 101 ..................................................................................................14, 22
9840675

-v-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 8 of 37

17 U.S.C. 102 ..........................................................................................4, 7, 15, 17

17 U.S.C. 201 ..........................................................................................8, 9, 12, 17
17 U.S.C. 302(c) ................................................................................................... 14
17 U.S.C. 409(3) ................................................................................................... 14
17 U.S.C. 411(a) ................................................................................................... 22
17 U.S.C. 501 .......................................................................................................... 8
28 U.S.C. 1291 ........................................................................................................ 1
28 U.S.C. 1331 ........................................................................................................ 1
28 U.S.C. 1338(a) ................................................................................................... 1
35 U.S.C. 100(f) ...................................................................................................... 9
35 U.S.C. 116(9) ..................................................................................................... 9
Rules
FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ......................................................................................... 1
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 17(c) .....................................................................................4, 20
Other Authorities
U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 ....................................................................... 4
H. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976)...........................................10, 14, 19
Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office Practices, 2d Edition
(1984) .................................................................................................................. 26
Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office Practices, 3d Edition
(2014) ................................................................................................22, 23, 25, 26
Aoki, Distributive and Syncretic Motives in Intellectual Property
Law (with Special Reference to Coercion, Agency, and
Development), 40 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 717 (2007) .......................................... 20

9840675

- vi -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 9 of 37

Balganesh, The Obligatory Structure of Copyright Law: Unbundling

the Wrong of Copying, 125 HARV. L. REV. 1664 (2012) ................................. 19
Hattenbach & Glucoft, Patents In An Era Of Infinite Monkeys And
Artificial Intelligence, 19 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 32 (2015) ................................. 6
Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT
5.01[A] (2015) ............................................................................................... 5, 6
Miller, Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and
ComputerGenerated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?,
106 HARV. L. REV. 977 (1993) .....................................................................21, 22
Sterk, Rhetoric and Reality in Copyright Law, 94 MICH. L. REV.
1197 (1996) ......................................................................................................... 15

9840675

- vii -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 10 of 37

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California
(district court) has subject matter jurisdiction over this copyright infringement.
28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). The district court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice for lack of standing under the Copyright Act and entered judgment on
February 18, 2016. This Court has jurisdiction over the current appeal from the
district courts final order. 28 U.S.C. 1291. Notice of appeal was timely filed in
accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE FOR REVIEW
Whether the district court erred in concluding that, because Congress did not
expressly grant standing to animals to sue under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17
U.S.C. 101 et seq., Plaintiff lacked standing as a matter of law to bring claims
under the Copyright Act.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A.

Nature of the Case

This case presents an issue of first impression: Whether human authorship is

required for protection under the Copyright Act. Plaintiff Naruto, a seven-year-old
crested macaque, took multiple photographs of himself (the Monkey Selfies)
using defendant David Slaters camera. [Excerpts of Record (ER) 20] There is
no dispute that Naruto took the photographs spontaneously and without human

9840675

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 11 of 37

assistance. In every practical (and definitional) sense, he is the author of the

works.
Defendants argue that animals have no standing under the statutethat they
cannot be authors. Had the Monkey Selfies been made by a human using Slaters
unattended camera, that human would undisputedly be declared the author and
copyright owner of the photographs. Nothing in the Copyright Act limits its
application to human authors. The U.S. Supreme Court has long given the
constitutional term Authors the broadest possible meaning. See Burrow-Giles
Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (Sarony), 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884)). On its face, the
Copyright Act applies to anyone who is an author, including Naruto; that is, the
originator; maker; [or] one who completes a work. Id.
Naruto therefore properly seeks a declaratory judgment that he has the right
to own and benefit from the copyright in the Monkey Selfies in the same manner
and to the same extent as any other author, as well as other relief.
B.

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the complaint against defendants David J. Slater, Wildlife

Personalities, Ltd., and Blurb, Inc. (collectively, Defendants), on September 21,
2015. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim. [ER 12] Without reaching the merits of the case, and despite recognizing the

9840675

-2-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 12 of 37

precedent set by this Court that animals may be granted standing under Article III
of the Constitution, the district court dismissed the Complaint on the sole ground
that the Copyright Act does not expressly grant standing to animals. [ER 14].
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Naruto is a free, autonomous seven-year old1 crested macaque, living on the
island of Sulawesi, Indonesia. [ER 20] In or around 2011, Naruto picked up an
unattended camera brought into Narutos habitat by defendant Slater. [Id.] Using
that camera, Naruto took a series of photographs of himself through a series of
purposeful and voluntary actions that were entirely unaided by Slater. [Id.] The
Monkey Selfies quickly became internationally famous. Seeking to capitalize on
their popularity, Defendants published and sold a book containing Narutos
Monkey Selfies, including one on its cover. [ER 2021] In that book and elsewhere
(though tellingly not in their motions to dismiss), Defendants claimed to own
copyrights to the Monkey Selfies, even as they admitted that Naruto created the
photographs without human assistance. [Id.]
Though he is a free animal, Naruto is not unknown to humans. Naruto is part
of a small population of Sulawesi crested macaques who have been studied for
nearly a decade by, among others, Dr. Antje Engelhardt, a German primatologist
1

The Complaint alleges that Naruto is six years old. He turned seven on November
23, 2015, after the complaint was filed. [ER 20]

9840675

-3-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 13 of 37

and ethologist. [ER 23] Dr. Engelhardt and her team have known, monitored, and
studied Naruto since his birth. [Id.] Based upon their personal knowledge of
Naruto, she and her team were able to recognize Naruto as both the author and
subject of the Monkey Selfies. Dr. Engelhardt and People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA) share a commitment and dedication to Naruto and the
preservation of both his habitat and his rights. [Id.] Pursuant to that commitment,
this lawsuit was filed on Narutos behalf. See FED. R. CIV. P. 17(c).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Constitution authorizes Congress [t]o promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. U.S. CONST. art. I,
8, cl. 8. Neither the Copyright Clause nor the Copyright Act contains on its face a
limitation solely to authors with human attributes or characteristics. The district
court erred in carving out such an exemption here. It is not necessaryindeed it is
antithetical to the purpose of the Copyright Actto specify who can be an author,
as that question is determined by looking at the attributes of the work sought to be
protected. The Copyright Act protects original works of authorship, not works of
human authors. See 17 U.S.C. 102. Moreover, the Monkey Selfies have all the
attributes required for protection under the Copyright Act. To exempt them from

9840675

-4-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 14 of 37

protection on the sole ground that Congress did not specify that animals can be
authors assumes erroneously that such specification would have been necessary.
Since enacting the Copyright Act of 1790, Congress and the Supreme Court
have instructed that the copyright laws should be interpreted liberally in order to
safeguard the general benefits derived by the public from works of authorship.
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). Because
copyright protection exists primarily to advance societys interest in increasing
creative output, it follows that the protection under the Copyright Act does not
depend on the humanity of the author, but on the originality of the work itself. The
Copyright Act was intended to be broadly applied and to gradually expand to
include new forms of expression unknown at the time it was enacted. Congress and
the courts have explained that copyright protection is critical to ensuring the
general public has access to works of authorship. The public places value in these
worksand, self-evidently, so do the Defendants.
While the facts present a question of first impression, the issue is not a trivial
onea point underscored by the rivers of ink [that] are spilt on the related
question of whether computers can be considered authors for copyright purposes.
Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT 5.01[A] (2015).
Whether works independently created by artificially intelligent computers are
entitled to copyright protection is, as Professor Nimmer notes, a question that may
9840675

-5-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 15 of 37

soon demand an answer. Id.2 The issue now before this Court is therefore of
considerable moment to the overarching question of whether the public is entitled
to the benefits derived from works of authorship where, as here, the author is not
human.
Given the plain reading of the statute, the purposes of the Copyright Act, and
Defendants own acknowledgment that copyright protection is necessary under the
circumstances, that question should be answered in the affirmative.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Questions of standing are reviewed de novo. Novak v. United States, 795
F.3d 1012, 1017 (9th Cir. 2015) (We review de novo a district courts
determination on the issue of standing.); Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.,
709 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2013) (We review standing, ripeness, and mootness
de novo.); Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 115657 & n.3 (9th Cir.
2008) (We review de novo dismissals under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).).

We have entered an era in which computers are not just crunching numbers but
generating works of a sort that have historically been protected as creative. It
remains to be seen whether equitable considerations will persuade courts to prevent
owners of works generated by brute computational force (and therefore would not
be otherwise copyrightable) from piggybacking on the success of identical works
made popular by others, or whether legislative intervention in the copyright arena
will be required to address these recent technological advances. Hattenbach &
Glucoft, Patents In An Era Of Infinite Monkeys And Artificial Intelligence, 19
STAN. TECH. L. REV. 32, 33-34 (2015).
9840675

-6-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 16 of 37

Underlying factual findings relevant to issues of standing are reviewed for clear
error. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 762 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008).
On a motion to dismiss, [a]ll factual allegations set forth in the complaint
are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Lee v.
City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Epstein v.
Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996)). When assessing
standing challenge, the court must be careful not to decide the questions on the
merits for or against plaintiff, and must therefore assume that on the merits the
plaintiffs would be successful in their claims. Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez,
532 F.3d 913, 924 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Where, as here, a complaint raises novel legal
questions, the Court should be especially reluctant to dismiss on the basis of the
pleadings. McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1270 (9th Cir. 2004)
(citing Elec. Constr. & Maint. Co., Inc. v. Maeda Pac. Corp., 764 F.2d 619, 623
(9th Cir. 1985)).
ARGUMENT
A.

The Copyright Act grants standing to anyone who creates an

original work of authorship

The Copyright Act applies to original works of authorship fixed in a

tangible medium of expression, now or later developed . 17 U.S.C. 102(a).
The Copyright Act specifies who has standing to sue: The legal or beneficial

9840675

-7-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 17 of 37

owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled to institute an action

for any infringement . Id. 501(b) (emphasis added). Thus, standing is given to
any copyright owner. See Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entmt, Inc., 402 F.3d 881,
884 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 827 (2005) (The meaning of that provision
appears clear. To be entitled to sue for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must be
the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright.); John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK Photo, 998 F. Supp. 2d 262, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
(Section 501(b) of the Copyright Act establishes who may sue for infringement of
a copyright.).
The Copyright Act also defines owner, at least initially: Copyright in a
work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.
Id. at 201(a) (emphasis added). Thus, to be an owner and, by extension, to
have standing, the plaintiff need only allege to be the author of a disputed work.
See Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) (The
Copyright Act of 1976 provides that copyright ownership vests initially in the
author or authors of the work.); DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012, 1024 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1390 (2015) (Accordingly, the author of an
underlying work is entitled to sue a third party who makes an unauthorized copy
.) (emphasis added).

9840675

-8-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 18 of 37

Notably, the Copyright Act does not define author. Nor was such a
definition necessary. The term author comes directly from the Constitution itself,
which grants Congress the authority to protect the Writings of Authors. See
Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 561 (1973) (citing U.S. CONST. Art. I, 8).
As a result, Congress did not have to define the term. Long before the Copyright
Act of 1976, the Supreme Court interpreted the constitutional meaning of author
in its broadest possible sense: While an author may be viewed as an individual
who writes an original composition, the term, in its constitutional sense, has been
construed to mean an originator, he to whom anything owes its origin.
Goldstein, 412 U.S. at 561 (quoting Sarony, 111 U.S. at 58). As a general rule, the
author is the party who actually creates the work . Cmty. for Creative NonViolence, 490 U.S. at 737; see also U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Parts Geek,
LLC, 692 F.3d 1009, 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) (Under 201(a) of the Copyright Act,
copyright ownership vests initially in the author or authors of the work, which is
generally the creator of the copyrighted work.). In passing the Copyright Act,
Congress merely adopted this judicial definition of author.3

In contrast, the patent statutes define inventor to mean the individual who
invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 100(f)
(emphasis added). The statutes also describe joint inventors as two or more
persons who conceive of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 116(9) (emphasis added).

9840675

-9-

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 19 of 37

Likewise, the Copyright Act did not explain how to identify the author of a
photographcourts had already done that as well. Over a century ago, in Sarony,
the Supreme Court considered whether the author of a photograph was the
individual who physically takes the picture or the individual who makes an image
out of the negative. To answer this question, the Court articulated the standard that
an author is he to whom anything owes its origin. 111 U.S. at 58. Applying that
standard to a photograph, the Court concluded that the author is the one who
effectively is as near as he can be the cause of the picture which is produced.
Sarony, 111 U.S. at 61 (quoting Nottage v. Jackson, 11 Q.B.D. 627 (1883)). In
other words, it is typically the one who sets it up and snaps the shutter.
Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, Naruto has sufficiently alleged that he is the one to whom the Monkey
Selfies owe their origin. Thus, Naruto has alleged that he is the author of the
Monkey Selfies, and, by extension, the owner of their copyrights.
Despite meeting all statutory requirements for standing, the district court
concluded that Naruto cannot state a claim under the Copyright Act because the
statute does not expressly grant standing to animals. But that reasoning misses the
mark: Congress did not provide an express definition at all. By its silence,
Congress accepted the broad constitutional notion of authorship and the judicial
construction that had been in place since at least the 19th century. See H. Rep. No.
9840675

- 10 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 20 of 37

1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 51 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5664.
(The phrase original works of authorship, which is purposely left undefined, is
intended to incorporate without change the standard of originality established by
the courts under the present copyright statute.) (emphasis added); Durham
Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 909 n.7 (2d Cir. 1980) (quoting
same). Naruto easily meets this definition.
In reaching its conclusion, the district court relied on this Courts opinion in
Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2004), which suggested
that animals lack standing absent an express authorization by statute. In Cetacean,
this Court concluded that animals lack standing to sue the United States under the
Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and other statutes,
because standing under those statutes was not expressly granted to animals.
However, the statutes at issue in Cetacean differ from the Copyright Act in
fundamental ways. First, the statutes at issue in Cetacean represented a waiver of
the United States sovereign immunity, and such waivers, unlike the Copyright
Act, are narrowly construed. See United States v. Nordic Vill. Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 34
(1992) ([T]he Governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in
favor of the sovereign .) (internal quotations omitted). Second, unlike the
Copyright Act, the statutes at issue in Cetacean actually define who has standing.
See Cetacean, 386 F.3d at 1175 (addressing the definition of person under the
9840675

- 11 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 21 of 37

statute). In contrast, the Copyright Act makes no attempt to define those who have
standing. Thus, it is impossible to limit the Copyright Act to only those who were
expressly granted standing. Doing so would effectively exclude everyone.
Naruto has sufficiently alleged that he is the author of the Monkey Selfies.
Naruto alleges, and Defendants admit, that Naruto was responsible for creating the
Monkey Selfies. [ER 20] Naruto further alleges that no human intended to, or did
in fact, assist in creating the Monkey Selfies. [Id.] Thus, Naruto has sufficiently
alleged that he is the author of the Monkey Selfiesthat he is their originator,
the one to whom the photographs owe their origin. Naruto is not required to
allege anything else to have standing in this Court.
B.

Authorship under the Copyright Act is not limited to humans

The Copyright Act recognizes that not all authors will be human. Most
prominently, it provides that if a work is created in an employment relationship,
then the employer is considered the author. 17 U.S.C. 201(b). This
proposition is so firmly established in the jurisprudence that most copyright cases

9840675

- 12 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 22 of 37

to reach the United States Supreme Court have been filed by authors who are nonhumans, ranging from motion picture studios4 to music publishers5 to others.6
It is important to appreciate that the corporate employer which qualifies as
the copyright author is not merely the successor to a nominal human author.
Under this statute, the title author does not begin with the creator and then pass
to the employer; rather, the rights of authorship vest initially in the corporation
itself. See Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th Cir.
2003) ([T]he Act does not envision a work-for-hire arrangement as an
assignment, but rather provides for initial vesting of all rights of authorship in
the person for whom the work was prepared.) (emphasis in original).7 Thus, when
the employer is a corporation, it is the author under the statute. See Playboy
4

E.g., ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., __ U.S. __ , 134 S.Ct. 2498 (2014); Sony Corp. v.
Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
5

E.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

E.g., Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. LAnza Research Intl, Inc., 523 U.S. 135,
138 (1998) (arising out of case in which a California corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing and selling shampoos, conditioners, and other hair care
products [and] has copyrighted the labels that are affixed to those products);
Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 490 U.S. at 733 (appeal arising from trial court
ruling that author of sculpture was nonprofit unincorporated association dedicated
to eliminating homelessness)
7

This rule stands in marked opposition to patent standards. See New Idea Farm.
Equip. Corp. v. Sperry Corp., 916 F.2d 1561, 1566 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explicitly
barring legal entities from obtaining inventorship status because people conceive,
not companies) (emphasis added).
9840675

- 13 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 23 of 37

Enterprises Inc. v. Dumas, 53 F.3d 549, 565 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1010
(1995) (Playboy is the author of those works and owns their copyrights);
Imperial Toy Corp. v. Goffa Intl Corp., 988 F. Supp. 617, 620 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)
(Chinese entity was an author under Copyright Act because statute does not
distinguish based on the nationality of the author of the work).
The Copyright Act also specifically defines the duration of copyright
protection for anonymous works, 17 U.S.C. 302(c), i.e., works for which no
natural person is identified as author. 17 U.S.C. 101 (emphasis added). Such
anonymous works may be registered without ever revealing the authors identity.
See 17 U.S.C. 409(3); cf. Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87, 92 (2d
Cir. 2014) (An orphan work is an out-of-print work that is still in copyright, but
whose copyright holder cannot be readily identified or located.). Thus, Congress
explicitly bestowed copyrights even when the author is not identified, leaving no
statutory impediment for a human to register an anonymous work on behalf of an
animal author.
That no prior case has sought copyright protection on behalf of an animal is
hardly dispositive. Congress explicitly noted that the history of copyright law has
been one of gradual expansion in the types of works accorded protection. See
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 51
(1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5664. Authors are continually
9840675

- 14 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 24 of 37

finding new ways of expressing themselves, but it is impossible to foresee the

forms that these new expressive methods will take. Id. Congress enshrined this
principle into the Copyright Act itself, explicitly including protections for original
works now or later developed. 17 U.S.C. 102(a) (emphasis added). This
historical context and Congresss clear legislative intent is a critical tool of
interpretation to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period
after its enactment. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 605 (2008).
C.

The Copyright Act must be interpreted broadly to achieve its

purpose

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but
[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Feist Publns, Inc. v.
Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991) (alteration in original); Harper &
Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 546 (1985) (It is evident
that the monopoly granted by copyright actively served its intended purpose of
inducing the creation of new material of potential historical value.).
The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an
authors creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate
artistic creativity for the general public good. Twentieth Century Music Corp.,
422 U.S. at 156; see also United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131,
158 (1948) (It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to
9840675

- 15 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 25 of 37

the public of the products of his creative genius.); Sterk, Rhetoric and Reality in
Copyright Law, 94 MICH. L. REV. 1197, 1203 (1996) ([I]t is incentive language
that pervades the Supreme Courts copyright jurisprudence.).
To accomplish this end, Congress and the Supreme Court have interpreted
the terms Writings and Authors as broadly as possible. These terms have not
been construed in their narrow literal sense but, rather, with the reach necessary to
reflect the broad scope of constitutional principles. Goldstein, 412 U.S. at 561.
For example, after photographs were invented, the Supreme Court had no
doubt they were Writings, even if not actually written, because the term
Writings is susceptible of a more enlarged definition. Sarony, 111 U.S. at 58.
The only reason why photographs were not included in the extended list in the act
of 1802 is, probably, that they did not exist, as photography, as an art, was then
unknown. Id. Failing to recognize animals as authorseven if animal-created
art was unknown until recentlywould impermissibly curtail the broad scope of
the Copyright Act and inhibit its constitutionally mandated goals.
Yet if animals cannot be authors, there is no copyright protection for their
works. 17 U.S.C. 102(a), 201(a). This is fundamentally at odds with the fact
that [c]opyright protection extends to all original works of authorship fixed in
any tangible medium of expression. Action Tapes, Inc. v. Mattson, 462 F.3d
1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see also Bell Atl. Bus. Sys. Servs.,
9840675

- 16 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 26 of 37

Inc. v. Hitachi Data Sys. Corp., No. C 9320079 JW, 1995 WL 836331, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 1995) (Copyright protection extends to all original works of
authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression) (emphasis added). It is
also antithetical to the public interest, and hence, the stated purpose of the
Copyright Clause. There is no doubt that the general public has an interest in works
of art, regardless of their authors characteristics or attributes. The tremendous
interest in Narutos work and Defendants attempts to exploit that interest (and to
bar others from doing so) only buttresses this conclusion.
In the proceedings below, Defendants argued that animals cannot hold
copyrights because animals do not respond to the financial incentives of copyright
ownership. But standing under the Copyright Act does not require that the author
intend to publish the work, or to profit from those works. See Monge v. Maya
Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1178 (9th Cir. 2012) (It may seem paradoxical to
allow copyright to be obtained in secret documents, but it is not. Federal copyright
is now available for unpublished works that the author intends to never see the
light of day.); Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc.,
227 F.3d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 958 (2001) (Even an
author who had disavowed any intention to publish his work during his lifetime
was entitled to protection of his copyright.). Nor does standing require an author
to derive any monetary gain from his work. Worldwide Church of God, 227 F.3d at
9840675

- 17 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 27 of 37

1115 (That right is not diminished or qualified by the fact that [appellant] is a notfor-profit organization and does not realize monetary benefit from the use of the
copyrighted work.). Thus, in Monge, this Court held that copyright protection
extended to wedding photographs that were taken solely for the couples private
use, even though the photographs would have never been published or earned a
single dollar but for the actions of the infringing party. Id.8
Moreover, it is irrelevant that Naruto cannot exploit his copyright without
the assistance of humans. Human childrenand even certain incapacitated
adultscannot reproduce or sell copyrighted works without the assistance of
others. But they are still authors under the Copyright Act. See generally Notes of
Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 126 (1976),

As Justice Holmes pointed out in White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo

Co., copyright embraces the right to exclude others from interference, not
directed to an object in possession or owned, but is in vacuo, so to speak. It is a
prohibition of conduct remote from the persons or tangibles of the party having the
right. 209 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1908) (Holmes, J, concurring). Copyright law focuses
not on a right that actively enables the exclusive use of the expression, but rather
forbidding all others from copying the expression; that is, a duty not to copy.
Balganesh, The Obligatory Structure of Copyright Law: Unbundling the Wrong
of Copying, 125 HARV. L. REV. 1664, 1670 (2012). By placing the focus on
rectifying the harm caused by the infringers duty not to copy, copyright law
insures that the publics grant of rights to an authornot just the private benefits
accorded to the authorare to be treated with respect. See e.g., Peters v. West,
692 F.3d 629, 63334 (7th Cir. 2012) (Fundamentally, proving the basic tort of
infringement simply requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant had an actual
opportunity to copy the original and that the two works share enough unique
features to give rise to a breach of the duty not to copy anothers work.).
9840675

- 18 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 28 of 37

reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5741(referencing the legally appointed

guardians or committees of persons incompetent to sign because of age or mental
disability); Mason v. Jamie Music Pub. Co., 658 F. Supp. 2d 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
(addressing copyright to song lyrics written by a minor). Because children cannot
assert their rights without the help of others, they are permitted, as here, to present
their case through another party acting on their behalf. See FED. R. CIV. P. 17(c).
No authority supports the district courts judicially created exception for
animal-created works. The fact that existing case law contains a lacuna in
recognizing ownership for this category scarcely leads to the result that protection
must be denied. The district court erroneously resolved this question of first
impression, as is shown below.
D.

Animal authorship under the Copyright Act is an issue of first

impression

The fact that copyright ownership by an animal has not been previously
asserted does not mean that such rights cannot be asserted: If rights were defined
by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own

9840675

- 19 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 29 of 37

continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied.
Obergefell v. Hodges, __ U.S. __ , 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2602 (2015).9
As the Supreme Court recognized when it first considered whether the
new technology of photography was a Writing, those who came before us used
the language they did because photography (like animal-created art) was then
unknown. Sarony, 111 U.S. at 58. Since no previous case has considered the
possibility of an animal author, it is hardly surprising that previous cases would
refer to authors as humans. As a corollary, any reference to humans is mere dicta
and does not foreclose a finding of animals as authors if the issue were presented.
Cetacean, 386 F.3d at 1173 (A statement is dictum when it is made during the
course of delivering a judicial opinion, but is unnecessary to the decision in the
case and is therefore not precedential.).
Indeed, the only time that this Court has ever considered the possibility of a
non-human author, it declined to answer the question:
The copyright laws, of course, do not expressly require human
authorship, and considerable controversy has arisen in recent years
over the copyrightability of computer-generated works. We agree with
[the appellee] however, that it is not creations of divine beings that the
9

Before the Civil War, the U.S. Patent Office held that inventions by slaves could
not be patented by anyone because slaves could not own property and slaveholders
were not the inventors. See Aoki, Distributive and Syncretic Motives in
Intellectual Property Law (with Special Reference to Coercion, Agency, and
Development), 40 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 717, 801 (2007).

9840675

- 20 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 30 of 37

copyright laws were intended to protect, and that in this case some
element of human creativity must have occurred in order for the Book
to be copyrightable. At the very least, for a worldly entity to be guilty
of infringing a copyright, that entity must have copied something
created by another worldly entity.
Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Miller,
Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer
Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?, 106 HARV. L. REV. 977
(1993)). Notably, when presented with the opportunity to do so, this Court
expressly declined to hold that only humans can be authors. Rather, this Court
merely observed that authorship by celestial beings cannot be proven, and that
even celestially inspired words need worldly hands to record them. Id. Of course,
unlike heavenly revelations that require human hands to write them, human hands
are not required to take a photograph. Thus, insofar as the issue of non-human
authorship has been considered by this Court, it remains an open question. The
only requirement articulated by this Court so far is that the author be of this
world. See id. And Naruto certainly meets that requirement.10
E.

The district court erroneously relied on the Compendium

In finding that animals nevertheless lack standing to sue under the Copyright
Act, the district court relied on the Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office
10

Defendant Slater publicly claims to hold the copyrights to the Monkey Selfies.
[ER 20] By conceding the copyrightability of the works, the only remaining
question is identifying the author. Here, the only possible author is Naruto.
9840675

- 21 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 31 of 37

Practices, 3d Edition (2014) (Compendium), which states that human authorship

is a requirement for registering a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. The
district courts reliance on the Compendium was misplaced. As an initial matter,
because the Monkey Selfies are foreign works, they do not require registration with
the Copyright Office. See 17 U.S.C. 101 and 411(a). Moreover, the
Compendium is not binding on the courtsand, indeed, does not even provide
guidance because it does not explain how the Copyright Office reached the
conclusion that animal-created works cannot be registered. The two cases cited in
the Compendium fall woefully short of supporting that conclusion.
First, the Compendium cites Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879),
which held that copyright law protects the fruits of intellectual labor that are
founded in the creative powers of the mind. Second, it cites Sarony, which held
that copyright law is limited to original intellectual conceptions of the author.
111 U.S. at 58. Neither case held, or even considered, whether a human mind is
necessary for copyright protection. Rather, those cases were addressing the
requirement that copyrightable works must be original. See id. The Monkey
Selfies easily meet that requirement, as the threshold for originality is minimal:
Originality in this context means little more than a prohibition of actual copying.
North Coast Indus. v. Jason Maxwell, Inc., 972 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 1992).
There is no suggestion that Narutos photographs were copied from any third party.
9840675

- 22 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 32 of 37

They are originalotherwise they never would have become so popular. Thus, by
concluding that animal-created works cannot be registered, the Compendium not
only failed to provide supporting analysis, it also reached the wrong conclusion,
which in any event is not binding on this Court.
Moreover, federal courts have suggested for over a century that every
photograph willby its very naturebe sufficiently original because no two
photographs will ever be exactly the same. In Bleistein v. Donaldson
Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903), the Supreme Court held that
chromolithographs, which depict real scenes and people as photographs do, were
copyrightable because they were the personal reaction of an individual upon
nature. Personality always contains something unique. Id. at 250. Building on
Bleistein, Judge Learned Hand considered it likely that every photograph would be
copyrightable because no photograph, however simple, can be unaffected by the
personal influence of the author, and no two will be absolutely alike. Jewelers
Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 274 F. 932, 934 (2d Cir. 1921), cert.
denied, 259 U.S. 581 (1922). More recently, this Court observed that Judge Hands
comment has become the prevailing view of modern copyright law, leaving it
likely that all photographs are sufficiently original by their nature to merit
copyright protection. Los Angeles News Service v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 793 (9th
Cir. 1992); see also Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir.
9840675

- 23 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 33 of 37

2000) (Indeed, the idea that photography is art deserving [copyright] protection
reflects a longstanding view of AngloAmerican law.).
The district court departs from the well-established norm that every
photograph is subject to copyright protection. See Ets-Hokin, 225 F.3d at 1073
(holding that photos of vodka bottles were protected by copyright given the low
threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and
consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal
standard); see also Bleistein, 188 U.S. at 250 (The least pretentious picture has
more originality in it than directories and the like, which may be copyrighted.)
The Compendium itself acknowledges that it does not override any existing
statute or regulation. The policies and practices set forth in the Compendium do not
in themselves have the force and effect of law and are not binding upon the
Register of Copyrights or U.S. Copyright Office staff. Compendium at p. 2. The
Supreme Court has held that lower courts may consider the interpretations set forth
in administrative manuals, such as the Compendium, only to the extent that such
documents have the power to persuade. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S.
576, 587 (2000) (internal citations omitted). The weight of [the agencys]
judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its
consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later
pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade .
9840675

- 24 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 34 of 37

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944); see also United States v. Mead
Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 228 (2001) (stating that deference to agency opinion varies
with the degree of the agencys care, its consistency, formality, and relative
expertness, and to the persuasiveness of the agencys position). Furthermore, the
Copyright Office has no authority to give opinions or define legal terms and its
interpretation on an issue never before decided should not be given controlling
weight. Bartok v. Boosey & Hawkes, Inc., 523 F.2d 941, 94647 (2d Cir. 1975)
(citing DeSylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 57778 (1956)). And, here, it is
undisputed that animal authorship is an issue never before decided.
Thus, the district court should have been especially wary of seeking
guidance from the Compendium. See id. Rather, the district court should have
followed the approach taken by this Court in Urantia and eschewed the illreasoned guidance of the Compendium on the issue of non-human authorship. The
1984 version of the Compendium declared that for a work to be copyrightable, it
must owe its origin to a human being. Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office
Practices, 2d Edition 202.02(b) (1984). Despite this pronouncement, this Court
in Urantia ignored the Compendium, observing copyright laws, of course, do not
expressly require human authorship . 114 F.3d at 958.
It is evident that the drafters of the Compendium gave the question of animal
authorship little consideration and no reasoned explanation to support their
9840675

- 25 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 35 of 37

conclusions. Indeed, the only legal test referenced by the Compendium is that
works must be original. Yet there is no doubt the Monkey Selfies are original.
Because the Compendium fails to explain how it reached its conclusion, it is not
entitled to any weight. See, e.g., Boyds Collection, Ltd. v. Bearington Collection,
Inc., 360 F. Supp. 2d 655, 66162 (M.D. Penn. 2005) (because letters from the
Copyright Office did not include a rationale or explanation for the agencys
construction of the statute, their value as persuasive authority, and the deference
owed to the agencys interpretation, is thus substantially limited).
Moreover, the Compendiums conclusion is inconsistent with the plain
language of the Copyright Act, the breadth with which it is interpreted, and the
constitutional purposes for which it was enacted. Thus, the Copyright Offices
baseless refusal to register animal-created works is entitled to no weight.

9840675

- 26 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 36 of 37

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully urges the Court to reverse the district
court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with Narutos
standing to pursue a declaration of his rights under the Copyright Act.
Dated: July 28, 2016

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

By: /s/ David A. Schwarz
Attorneys for PlaintiffAppellant Naruto,
by and through his Next Friend, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.
Of Counsel:
Jeffrey S. Kerr, Esq.
General Counsel
PETA FOUNDATION

9840675

- 27 -

Case: 16-15469, 07/28/2016, ID: 10067080, DktEntry: 17, Page 37 of 37

9th Circuit Case Number(s) 16-15469

NOTE: To secure your input, you should print the filled-in form to PDF (File > Print > PDF Printer/Creator).

*********************************************************************************

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date)
.
Jul 28, 2016
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
Signature (use "s/" format)

s/ David A. Schwarz

*********************************************************************************

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date)
.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I
have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it
to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following
non-CM/ECF participants:

Signature (use "s/" format)